Divisions and Solidarities

Gender, Class and Employment in Latin America

Alison MacEwen Scott

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781134978144
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

Traditionally, class analysis has exaggerated the role of economic differentiation, particularly that of the informal economy, and has underestimated the degree of common consciousness amongst the `labouring class'. In Divisions and Solidarities, Alison MacEwen Scott examines class analysis and the inter-relationship between gender and class which creates a shared interest between men and women in some contexts and a divergence of interest in others. Using case studies of the urban population in Latin America, she presents a major critique of existing class theories and presents a new theoretical treatment on class formation, the orthodoxy of the informal economy, class consciousness and political participation.

1

Introduction

This book has two objectives, one theoretical and one substantive. The first concerns the development of a theoretical framework for integrating class and gender as linked systems of inequality. An important aspect of this project is the systematic analysis of employment divisions, their relationship with the family and the impact of both on consciousness and action. The second objective is to develop this theoretical framework through a substantive analysis of the labouring class in Peru during the period of import-substituting industrialization (the 1960s and 1970s). This was a key period in the development of urban class formation in Latin America, and one on which many class theories were based and subsequently rejected. The analysis presented here involves a reinterpretation of what actually happened then as well as a rethinking of the concepts through which the period is studied.

The project to integrate class and gender theoretically is fraught with difficulty. One major problem is the lack of consensus about the nature of class. Sociological writings on this matter have been riddled with debate and dissent. There are many disagreements about the appropriate conceptual and methodological tools for its analysis. In comparison with class, the debate about gender is yet in its infancy, although many of the same problems are already developing.

In order for class and gender to be integrated theoretically, the concept of class has to be reformulated. Traditionally, class analysis has been too narrowly focused on work-based categories. This has given it a static and individualist emphasis that is inappropriate for societies experiencing rapid social change. The formalistic, abstract emphasis of some Marxist theories, in particular, has left little room for subjective experiences of inequality and the influence of other systems of oppression besides class. However, in contrast with some authors who have made similar criticisms, I do not think that the solution is to abandon the concept of class altogether. Rather it should be modified, so that links can be made between individual experiences and macro-social structures and between class and other systems of inequality. This means extending the concept of class beyond the workplace.

The theoretical framework I have adopted in this study assumes that class and gender are systems of inequality which entail a relationship between the structure of inequality, the subjective experiences and consciousness associated with that structure, and political action. Both systems involve a division of labour, a distribution of resources and power, and a legitimating ideology. Both systems include men and women—it is important to include women in the analysis of class and men in that of gender. The situation of each group can only be understood within the context of the whole. It assumes that these systems are interlinked; therefore we cannot understand gender without looking at class, and vice versa. Moreover, the linkages between these two systems affect the structure of each one: for example, gender shapes the labour market and class shapes the family. The interrelationship between gender and class can create a coincidence of interest between men and women in some situations, and differences of interest in others.

Specification of the linkages between class and gender is still relatively undeveloped. There have been many descriptive studies of the situation of women in particular classes, and of the effect of specific class processes, such as proletarianization, on women. But aside from the fact that men have to be included in the analysis if it is gender we are looking at, these descriptive studies do not address the question of whether gender is an explanatory variable in the formation of class itself and whether class has a similar role in the construction of gender. It is at this theoretical level that the interaction between the two systems must be examined. We need to know, for example, how gender is incorporated into the occupational division of labour, in what ways it contributes to the construction of power and privilege and how it affects class ideology. On the other hand, we also need to understand how gender is constituted by class—by wealth and power or by poverty and dependence on welfare—and whether relations between men and women are influenced in some way by relations between classes.

This framework will be contentious in some quarters. Whereas initially, class theorists rejected the claim that gender could have any relevance for them (see critiques by Acker 1973, Garnsey 1978, Stanworth 1984), more recently the problem has been a shift away from systemic approaches in general and the demise of the concept of class itself (e.g. Laclau and Mouffe 1985, Hindess 1987, Holton 1989, Pahl 1989). In Latin America, class analysis has increasingly been challenged as a useful framework for studying inequality and political action. It has been replaced by two quite separate bodies of theory, labour markets and social movements. Much of the recent work on gender has focused exclusively on women, more interested in their specific subjectivity than in the dynamics of gender oppression as a system. Research on women in poverty virtually ignores class, unless it is equated with paid work. The broader relationship between poverty, employment, consciousness and action has been lost from focus. ‘Gender’ has become synonymous with women; men are shadowy figures, the invisible oppressors and patriarchs. The idea that women and men could share a common interest —that of class—borders on heresy. Ironically, this pattern is the reverse of the earlier tendency to equate class with men.

The project to integrate class and gender requires an adaptation of the central concepts to the specific historical context being studied. In my view, one of the reasons for the demise of class was the rigidity with which it was applied to different empirical situations. This was particularly the case with the Marxist formulation, which was influential in Latin America when class analysis was at the height of fashion. Relations of production and labour market positions may have been important for the system of capital accumulation but they were not the major sources of identity and solidarity at that time. Mobility, kinship and the struggle for better living conditions were just as important and needed to be brought into the analysis of class.

Gender theories have also relied heavily on frameworks developed in the West which assume a nuclearized family structure which only has an indirect effect on the labour market. In Latin America, kinship systems are much more diverse and have been linked to the economy in more complex ways. Gender inequality is framed by the extended family as much as by the nuclear household, and is reinforced by direct control over productive resources, rather than via the labour market. The analysis of class and gender therefore has to pay attention to the institutional framework within which these systems are embedded.

CLASS AND GENDER DURING THE GROWTH PERIOD IN LATIN AMERICA (1950s-1970s)

Like many Latin American countries, import-substituting industrialization in Peru produced rapid growth, high rates of internal migration and urbanization and increasing income inequality. Debates about the effect of these processes on class formation were at the top of the political and academic agenda at that time, fuelled by the hope—or fear—that urban workers would propel revolutionary change in their society. Class was the favoured concept for analysing the urban poor because of its explicit connection between economic structure and political action, although there was considerable disagreement about the correct theoretical formula to apply. Concerns about gender were largely absent then; the debate about class was still framed in terms of a masculine discourse about men’s work, men’s trades unions and men in political parties. Women’s roles in the labour market and in neighbourhood-based social movements were largely ignored.

The major theoretical problem for class analysis during these years was differentiation. The growth process had produced a diversity of forms of production in the urban economy, ranging from factory production and modern public service bureaucracies to small artisanal workshops, street pedlars and personal servants. Most of the manual workers in these different forms of production were poor although they were not all wage earners and some had higher incomes than others. How were these different situations to be theorized in class terms? Were they separate classes, differentiated according to their degree of dependence on wage labour, or fractions within a more amorphous category of ‘marginal mass’ or ‘urban poor’?

At the time, structural Marxism was the dominant influence in class analysis, giving prime emphasis to the process of production as the main criteria for class location (e.g. Dos Santos 1970, Nun 1969). This approach in turn was influenced by two bodies of theory which attempted to explain the reasons for economic diversity: dependency theory and informal sector theory. Dependency theory was concerned with the specific nature of capitalist development in Latin America. It held that the industrialization process there was stunted by its dependence on foreign capital and technology; this limited the process of proletarianization of the workforce and perpetuated so-called ‘marginal’ forms of employment living on the periphery of capitalist production (for a review of these theories see Kay 1989).

Economists, focusing on the structure of urban labour markets, had come up with a similar interpretation, i.e. that the extent of ‘formal’ sector growth was limited by capital-intensity of production, and that the residual workforce was having to find a living in the ‘informal’ sector, in self-employment or other small-scale forms of production (see Bromley 1978, Moser 1978). Although there has been much debate between Marxists and economists over the concept of the informal sector, they have much in common, as I shall show in the next chapter.

Differentiation amongst manual workers was largely analysed in terms of relations of production and labour market segmentation. The distinction between wage labour and self-employment or capitalism and petty commodity production was the basis for a separation between a capitalist proletariat and a class variously described as a ‘marginal mass’, a ‘lumpenproletariat’ or a ‘petit bourgeoisie’. Their different locations within the sphere of production were assumed to correspond to specific objective class interests and forms of consciousness and action. Hence they constituted separate classes within the overall structure of inequality (e.g. Portes 1985).

During the 1980s, structural Marxism was criticized for its functionalist and economistic style of analysis (Cutler et al. 1977, 1978, Hindess 1987, Booth 1985), and dependency theory was attacked for underestimating the extent of growth within dependent development (Cardoso 1972, Warren 1973). Informal sector theory was also subjected to a number of critiques, amongst them excessive dualism and insufficient attention to internal diversity and intersectoral mobility (Bromley 1978, Moser 1978, Nelson 1979). Nevertheless it has remained the major paradigm for the analysis of class and employment in Latin America and research on women has largely worked within it.

There was increasing dissatisfaction with this form of class analysis. The view from below, from anthropological work in shanty towns, suggested that subjective attitudes were at odds with structurally defined positions or merely considered them unimportant. ‘Actors’ models’ of inequality were more concerned with consumption-based issues and social mobility than with conditions of exploitation at work (e.g. Lloyd 1979, 1982). Evidence on movement between different forms of production or labour market segments contradicted the picture of stable class cleavages amongst manual workers (Nelson 1979, Lloyd 1982). Finally, consumption issues, particularly housing, were a more significant basis for political mobilization than the workplace (Castells 1983, Slater 1985). Attention increasingly concentrated on social movements based on residence, nationality and gender (Castells 1983, Slater 1985, Schuurman and Maerssen 1988). Since such movements could not be explained by production relations, there was a shift of focus to subjectivity and discourse which stressed more diverse and volatile social identities (Touraine 1981, Castells 1983, Laclau and Mouffe 1985).

Recent years have seen the burgeoning of theoretical and empirical work on gender, with a huge increase in the ‘women in development’ literature. This has revealed the importance of women’s work in the urban economy and their role in political movements based on the neighbourhood (see Young and Moser 1981, Moser 1987, Brydon and Chant 1989, Jelin 1990). However, it was difficult to accommodate this new information into existing class analysis. Because of its exclusive focus on production relations, the vast majority of women who were not in paid work had no class position at all. Within the sphere of production, the informal sector model did not help with the analysis of gender, for much of the inequality between men and women was within the formal and informal sectors, not between them (Scott 1991).

Most women were concentrated in the informal sector, which excluded them from traditional forms of class action, such as unions. Yet they were extremely active in residence-based actions, when necessary confronting the police and the army to defend their rights to land; but such actions had no place in a Marxist theory of class. Since Marxist class theory is based on individual positions within the class structure, there was no theoretical role for the family as a source of class identity for women or men. Yet many of the struggles for consumption goods, such as land and housing, were carried out by both men and women in the name of family and class. Therefore, if class was to be able to incorporate gender into its framework of analysis, the exclusive focus on individual production relationships would have to be questioned; if not, class would clearly have little relevance for women.

CLASS, GENDER AND THE FAMILY

In Lima, the division between men and women within the sphere of production was dramatic. On all possible measurable dimensions—income, skill, types of enterprise, types of work and mobility opportunities—they were poles apart. The extent of the gender division amongst manual workers far surpassed all other employment distinctions in terms of segregation and inequality. Whereas male workers could expect to move in and out of different employment situations over their lifetimes, and thus experienced labour market disadvantage as temporary, women faced a much more restricted set of options and were confined to them for most of their lives.

How could one speak about a class with common interests and experiences when the men and women of that class were in such very different positions? In most class schema, such a division would merit the identification of separate class categories or at the very least class ‘fractions’. Yet men and women were married to each other and in many respects identified with the same class interests despite their very different work experiences. As already mentioned, they would struggle together to defend the living standards of their families and the future prospects of their children, and the forms of consciousness and struggle involved were expressed in class terms. How could one explain this apparent contradiction of identities and interests?

All these questions required an analysis of the family, both as the source of differences between men and women as workers and as a basis for personal identity and communal action. Yet the theoretical tools for such an analysis were still very underdeveloped. Much of the old-style theory of the family had been swept away by feminist critique, but little had been put in its place. Was the family a consensual unit or the site of a ‘class’ conflict between men and women? Or could it be both? The more I examined the structure of the labouring class family in Lima, the more contradictory it appeared, for it combined internal inequality and often considerable violence with a strong ideology of unity and solidarity. Was there a parallel here between the family and class? Were there circumstances in which internal class divisions could be subsumed under a wider framework of communality?

Such questions would take us well away from structural Marxist theories of class, which gave primacy to individual production relationships; they would lead to a much wider consideration of the role of family, community and culture in the formation of class identities and consciousness. The more I considered this possibility, the more sense it seemed to make in the Peruvian context. But this required a fundamental re-examination of class theory because questions were now being posed about the appropriate units of class analysis and the whole relationship between economic and non-economic aspects of class. In essence this involved a rejection of structuralist theories of class that relied solely on individual production relationships.

MODIFYING THE CONCEPT OF CLASS

In my view, it is impossible to comprehend a society such as Peru’s without some concept of class. Unquestionably, poverty is rooted in the social organization of production and power relations between the major economic classes. However, class is more than this; it also refers to the quality of relations between classes, the experiences of oppression and derogation that shape class identities, and the solidarities that arise on the basis of these experiences. Class is about how economic divisions acquire social and political meanings and produce social and political effects; and about the way in which the life chances of whole families and communities are affected by economic inequality.

Weberian theory facilitates a broader approach than Marxism, but it does not provide all the answers. For example, it pays more attention to the process of group formation within structural positions, and the influence of social interaction within these groups on class identities and consciousness. It pays particular attention to mobility: its effects on individual attitudes and expectations, and on the stability of classes over time. It is more prepared to examine the nature of inequalities created by the market and the uses to which market advantage is put in terms of life style and status.

I believe that the analysis of economic relations within the sphere of production needs to remain at the core of class theory, but that a series of more diffuse concepts need to be developed to encompass broader structures such as class institutions, class cultures, class communities etc., which arise on the basis of economic relations. Clearly, these different conceptions of class cannot be subsumed under a single concept. Therefore, following Giddens (1973), I suggest that we use the terms economic class and social class to refer to the narrow and broad usages respectively.

Economic class, then, refers to production-based categories such as property and labour relations, control over resources, market capacities and life chances. Social class refers to the distribution of material resources, the organization of consumption, the construction of social status via social networks and symbolic processes, and the institutions that give effectivity to these processes. A c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures and tables
• Map of Peru
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Class, gender and the informal sector
• 3 Growth, inequality and mobility
• 4 Family, gender and the labouring class
• 5 Divisions amongst the labouring class
• 6 Mobility within the labouring class I: aggregate patterns
• 7 Mobility within the labouring class II: career paths
• 8 Employment, family and class
• 9 Consciousness and political action
• 10 Conclusions
• Appendix: data sources
• Notes
• References
• Glossary of Spanish words
• Index